S4. 



?2 



2. 



7 



r 



7r 



•% 



A 



AN IMPERIAL POLICY DANGEROUS 
TO THE REPUBLIC. 



SPEECH 



OF 

/ 



HON. JOHN F. SHAFROTH, 



OF COLORADO, 



IN THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



Tuesday, June 14, 1803. 



WASHINGTON. 

1898. 






611 



> of 



SPEECn 



Ol' 



HON. JOHN F. SHA FROTH 



The House having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. 359) to 
provide for annexing: the Hawaiian Islands to the United States 

Mr. SHAFROTH said: 

Mr. Speaker: It is with feelings of the gravest apprehension 
that I find in this House a sentiment concerning the future foreign 
policy of this Government which has just found expression in the 
speech of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Sulzer]. He has 
boldly declared that the United States should enter upon a policy 
of acquiring colonial possessions; that it should not only annex 
Hawaii but should extend its power and dominion across the Pa- 
cific and forever hold possession of the Philippine Islands. 

Sir., he but voices the sentiment of four-fifths of those Repre- 
sentatives who believe in the annexation of Hawaii. 

On the day the vote was taken to consider this resolution, in 
order to test the extent of this sentiment, I put the question to 
twelve Hawaiian annexationists of this House, whether they be- 
lieved also in annexing the Philippine Islands. In every instance 
I received an affirmative answer. I am satisfied that to-day such 
a policy for this Government would be carried by a large major- 
ity in this body. The question has gone beyond that of merely 
annexing Hawaii and is now whether we will adopt an imperial 
policy for this Republic. 

Sir, if any person six weeks ago had suggested that the policy 
which this Government has pursued with such magnificent re- 
sults for the last one hundred years should be reversed and that 
we should extend our dominion to the Asiatic continent, he would 
have been regarded as a dreamer unfit to represent the people of 
any State in the Union. And yet the excitement of war has pro- 
duced such a desire for conquest that the Representatives set no 
limit or bound to the extent of our dominion. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss this resolution from three stand- 
points: 

First, from the political standpoint; 

Second, from the commercial standpoint ? and 

Third, from the military standpoint. 

3538 3 



f 



I.-FROM THE POLITICAL STANDPOINT. 

What I mean by political standpoint is not as it affects one po- 
litical party or the other, but as it affects the general policy and 
welfare of the United States. Under a system of acquiring terri- 
tory only on this continent, which in no manner involves us in 
the political controversies of the European powers, we have built 
up the greatest nation on the face of the globe. No longer can 
even the greatest European nation be compared to the United 
States. It is proper now to contrast this country only with groups 
of nations, or with the balance of the world. In commerce, manu- 
facture, mining, and agriculture we are equal to between one- 
third and one-half of the balance of the world. 

The nations whose policy has been to acquire colonial posses- 
sions have not made such rapid progress. 

WHY THE UNITED STATES BECAME RICH AND POWERFUL. 

Why have we advanced so rapidly? At the time of the forma- 
tion of our Government we possessed practically none of the 
accumulated wealth that made the European nations important, 
and yet without an equal start we have far surpassed them in 
wealth and in all the industries that make a nation truly great. 

The reason of our immense achievement lies in the fact that the 
position of our territory naturally isolates us from the political 
quarrels of the Eastern Continent, 

With no rival to the north or the south on this hemisphere, with 
no contiguous foe we need fear, we have not been required to tax 
ourselves to death for the purpose of sustaining a large standing 
army and an immense navy. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of an 
ample navy and have always so voted, but I am not in favor of 
undertaking a policy that will necessitate two and three times as 
large a navy as would be required for the most ample protection 
of our territory as now constituted. A colonial policy means 
enormously increased standing army and navy and millions to be 
spent on fortifications of distant harbors. 

In an interview of a few weeks ago Senor Sagasta, the Spanish 
premier, said: 

Our colonies have cost us dear. Within the last twenty-five years we have 
spent in thern 3,000,0*30 009 francs in defensive works. Only the most impor- 
tant cities and points have been fortified, as we could not erect works every- 
where. The cost would have been 7,000,000,000 or 8,000,000,000 francs. 

Germany also finds colonies to be expensive. Her experience in 
this respect was recently stated in the Boertsen Courier, of Berlin, 
as follows: 

A heavy burden has been laid upon Germany by her colonial policy. About 
11,000,000 marks are spent annually in this connection, and a further expendi- 
3536 



tare may be looked for in the future. The revenue derived from the colonies 
in no v/ay offsets this expenditure. 

Great armies and navies appeal to the national pride when com- 
paring the prowess of nations, yet it must be remembered that 
the chief end of government is the happiness of the subject, and 
subjects can not be happy when burdened with taxation for main- 
taining unnecessarily large armies and navies. Such a course 
affects not only the happiness of the citizen, but prevents great 
development and cripples the industries of a nation. It strips 
the productive forces of a country in order to supply men for the 
army. In order to maintain this warlike array the taxes of Eng- 
land are 10 per cent of the earnings of her people; of France, 13 per 
cent; of Germany, 10.V per cent, while those of the United States, 
under our policy, are only 5 per cent. The wars of Europe in the 
past century have directly or indirectly cost more than $100,000,- 
000,000. That is the reason Europe has not prospered as wehave. 
Do we want to change that natural advantage which our position 
gives and enter upon a policy that will involve us in controver- 
sies with foreign powers and necessitate the placing of the same 
burdens upon our people as are now borne by the nations of Europe? 

For a time the glittering sight of marshaled men may stimu- 
late our pride and make us enthusiastic for such an array, but 
when we realize that the cost of indulging that national pride 
must be paid by the sweat of labor, with its inevitable result of 
preventing development and crippling industries, the wise course 
of maintaining our natural advantage becomes apparent. 

No better advice was ever given than that of Washington in his 
Farewell Address, when he said: 

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extend- 
ing our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection 
as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fill- 
tilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. 

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very re- 
mote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the 
< auses of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it 
must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary 
vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her 
friendships or enmities. 

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a dif- 
ferent course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the 
period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external an- 
noyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality wo 
may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belliger- 
ant nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not 
legally hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war 
as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. 

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own 
to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweavingour destiny with that 
of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of Euro- 
pean ambition, rivalahip, interest, humor, or caprice? 



6 

Mr. Jefferson, in his inaugural address of 1801, announced the 
following rule: 

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alli- 
ances with none. 

SHALL WE ABANDON THE MONROE DOCTRINE? 

This annexation policy which sseins to so thoroughly pervade 
this House means the abandonment of the Monroe doctrine. That 
doctrine is simply that European governments should not extend 
their territory on this hemisphere, and reciprocally that we should 
not extend our dominion beyond the same. 

Mr. Speaker, in this Hall two years ago, I witnessed a scene 
which I shall never forget. It was at the time of the dispute be- 
tween this country and Great Britain over the Venezuelan bound- 
ary. The President sent a message to Congress, which with ring- 
ing words declared that the Monroe doctrine should be maintained; 
that no European power should be permitted to acquire territory 
on this side of the Atlantic. There was universal applause fol- 
lowing the reading of that message. The feeling of Congress 
partook of the same character as that which manifested itself at 
the time of the passage of the bill appropriating $50,000,000 for 
the defense of the nation. With no dissenting voice it was said 
that the Monroe doctrine was most essential to our Government 
and must be upheld. 

The result of that message made the Monroe doctrine inter- 
national law. After that firm message England discovered that 
the Monroe doctrine was the same principle applied to this conti- 
nent that she had exercised repeatedly as to the Eastern Hemi- 
sphere, namely, the doctrine of the balance of power. She con- 
ceded that if she had the right to enforce that doctrine as to 
the Eastern Continent, we had the right to enforce it as to the 
Western. 

For one hundred years we have been trying to get the nations 
of the world to recognize this principle, and at last it is an ac- 
complished fact. Yet, the minute we get this cherished principle 
firmly established and recognized, we by our own volition de- 
stroy it. 

Sir, we have no right to invoke that doctrine against the acqui- 
sition of territory on this continent by European nations, and at 
the same time violate the doctrine by the acquisition of territory 
on the eastern continent. We must either keep hands off the 
Eastern Hemisphere, or permit European nations to acquire ter- 
ritory in this continent. One is the correlative of the other. 

To my mind there is no comparison as to which is the better 
policy for this Government. The one continues the policy of 
peace, of making this the greatest of all commercial nations, and 
of developing all the varied industries of the same. 

3536 



The other is a policy of military aggrandizement, which is not 
suited to the principles of a republic, and not consonant with the 
liberty of the individual. 

There are weaknesses in republics that disqualify them from 
becoming warlike nations. The discipline of an army is the exer- 
cise of the powers of monarchy. The conduct of a campaign is 
absolute monarchy. 

To gain advantages in preparing for and declaring war, secrets 
must be made of important facts, which can never be done under 
republican institutions. Good government in a republic is the 
result of the greatest latitude of investigation by the public. To 
depart from that course would open the Pandora box of evils 
which would jeopardize the very existence of the republic. 

Mr. Speaker, others maybe willing under an impulse generated 
by war to declare that they will abandon the doctrine that has 
been recognized not only by one, but by all political parties as 
the true and wise policy for this Government; but I for one can 
not. I can not persuade myself that such a course is for the best 
interest of my country. 

OTHER POLITICAL PROBLEMS. 

Iii the annexation of the Hawaiian or Philippine islands other 
political questions arise that are almost as momentous and as 
fatal to our institutions as the doctrine of military aggrandize- 
ment. The Hawaiian and Philippine islands are located in a 
latitude south of the Tropic of Cancer. Sir, there is something 
in the climate of the torrid zone that saps the energies of man and 
prevents that development so essential to good and enlightened 
citizenship of a republic. The civilization of a people is largely 
the result of climatic influences, and hence it is almost impossible, 
if not an impossibility, to change the civilization of the countries 
situated near the equator. The Sandwich Islands have a popula- 
tion of 109.000, of which 24,407 are Japanese; 21,616, Chinese; 
15,191, Portuguese; 39,504, native Hawaiians; 4,116, other foreign- 
ers, and 3,036, Americans. The Philippine Islands have a greater 
percentage of Asiatic population. 

Why, sir, what are we going to do with these or the Philippine 
Islands if they are annexed to the United States? Are we going 
to admit them as States? You must remember they belong to an 
entirely different civilization, to an entirely different race. They 
know nothing of republican institutions. 

Are we going to give these people the right of local self-govern- 
ment? The answer is no; and it is not contended that they are 
capable of self-government. Yet are we going to violate the very 
principle for which our fathers fought the Revolutionary war? 
Are we now going to deny the principle that "taxation without 
representation is tyranny?"' 
3530 



8 

The Constitution of the United States declares that no person 
ehall be deprived of the right of citizenship on account of race, 
color, or previous condition of servitude. 

Mr. Speaker, when territory is added to this nation, we are 
bound to give the inhabitants thereof the right of citizenship, or 
to overturn the guaranty of the Constitution. What does local 
self-government or admission to statehood mean as to these islands? 
It means a race problem. We have had one race problem, which 
almost destroyed republican institutions in some of the States of 
this Union. That was one in which the races were nearly equally 
divided in such States. How much more serious must be the 
problem where the proportion against our own race is more than 
15 to 1? 

Consequently, the admission of Hawaii or the Philippine Islands 
will bring to us nothing but discord, discontent, and a large ex- 
penditure of money. In my judgment it will result in no good to 
the nation. 

Is it possible that it is wise policy to add to our country the 
same Asiatic inhabitants against whom the people of the Pa- 
cific coast once rose in their wrath and compelled the enact- 
ment of laws excluding them from our shores? 

The song of " Come along, John Chinaman, we've room enough 
to welcome all," was once sung with a degree of enthusiasm that 
indicated a unanimity of sentiment favorable to such immigra- 
tion. And yet, sir, when the practicable application of the senti- 
ment was felt, it produced such a revulsion in the public mind 
that had not speedy restrictive legislation followed it would have 
produced domestic disturbances that might have culminated even 
in revolution. Is it possible that it is wise to again put repub- 
lican institutions to such a severe test? 

The foundation upon which republics are founded is the edu- 
cation of its citizens. It is in recognition of this principle that 
we have established the public-school system and spent millions 
and millions of dollars in educating our children. It is said that 
anarchy can never prevail among educated people, and it is true. 
Are we now to ignore that principle and run the hazards of revolt 
which all history shows must surely follow from ignorant citi- 
zenship? 

Besides, sir, by annexation of the Hawaiian Islands we are 
•violating another fundamental principle of our Government. 
" Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the 
governed." The Dole administration does not even pretend to 
represent the wishes of the people of Hawaii on this question. 
A monster petition against annexation, signed by more than a 
majority of the Hawaiians, has been presented to the Senate. No 
one has contended in this debate that a majority of the inhabitants 
c533 



9 

desire annexation. The annexationists dare not adopt an amend- 
ment to this resolution providing for annexation upon a vote of 
the people of those islands. Is it possible that our Government 
that pretends to derive its jurisdiction over people from the con- 
sent of the governed are, as against a frieDdly people, going ttf 
annex them without their consent? We may have the power, but 
it is not wise to exercise it. 

I therefore contend that from a political standpoint it will be 
an egregious blunder for this Government to enter upon an im- 
perial policy, or to make a start therein by annexing the Hawaiian 
Islands. 

II.— FROM THE COMMERCIAL STANDPOINT. 

I wish now to examine this question from the commercial stand- 
point. In doing this, I will consider it only from the standpoint 
of benefit to our country, not as it affects the people of the 
Hawaiian or Philippine islands. Do we get the best of the bar- 
gain? 

This is the first time I have ever heard that it is to our com- 
mercial advantage to annex islands when the balance of trada 
with them is against us to the extent of ten millions a year— when 
they sell us three times as much as we sell them. 

We imported from Hawaii in 1898 products of the value of 
$15,460,098 and exported products of the value of $5,404,208, leav- 
ing the balance of trade against us to the extent of $9,995,890. 

The balance of trade against us is not the worst feature of our 
commerce with those islands. Ninety-nine per cent of those im- 
ports is sugar, every pound of which should be raised on Ameri- 
can soil and by American labor. The Hawaiian Islands in 1897 
imported into this country the enormous amount of 502.000,000 
pounds of sugar. Sir, that is sufficient to supply with that com- 
modity all the people in the United States residing west of the 
Missouri River. When these islands are once annexed, the sugar 
industry there will increase even more rapidly than it has in the 
past, and in the last twenty-five years the imports of sugar have 
increased almost in a geometrical ratio, being 25,080,182 pounds 
in 1875 and 443,569,282 pounds in 1893. 

Mr. Speaker, is it possible that we want to put those people in 
active competition with the people who are native-born Ameri- 
cans? 

Mr. BRUCKER. Have we not done that by the reciprocity 
treaty? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. I concede that that has been done by the 
reciprocity treaty, and it has been done at a cost of $65,000,000 to 
your constituents and mine. [Applause.] 

Mr. BRUCKER. And yet at the same time the gentleman will 
not say that he is in favor of the repeal of that treaty? 



10 

Mr, SHAFROTH. I must say that I do not believe that treaty 
ought to exist. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

The annexation of these islands means the absolute destruction 
of the sugar industry in the Western States. It means depriving 
the already overburdened farmer of the privilege of raising a prod- 
uct which promises to yield him some return for his labor. 

Why he can not compete with Hawaiian sugar is because it is 
there raised by contract Chinese and Japanese labor that is paid 
$3 a month and board, or 30 cents a day without board. In the 
Philippine Islands the labor conditions are still worse. Is it any 
wonder that Mr. Gompers, the president of the Federation of 
Labor of the United States, is fighting with all his might the an- 
nexation of the Hawaiian and Philippine Islands. 

Therefore I maintain that from a commercial standpoint an- 
nexation would be to the detriment of our trade balance, to the 
destruction of our sugar industry, and to the injury of our la- 
borers. 

III.— FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT. 

Mr. Speaker, I desire now to discuss the proposition from a mili- 
tary standpoint. 

I take it as a general proposition that the consensus of opinions 
of statesmen is that solidarity of territory presents the most in- 
vulnerable form of possessions. No better demonstration of this 
can be found than in the present war with Spain. We have 
made the attack upon Spain, where? Not on her home territory. 
If this war were waged upon her home territory it would take ten 
times the number of men and ten times the amount of money to 
produce the same result we are now accomplishing. 

We have attacked Spain at her weakest points, namely, in her 
outlying possessions. If we acquire colonies, the first attack upon 
us will be through them. As long as you have a compact territory 
no nation will dare invade it, because nothing can be made 
thereby. There is no way of holding a slice of territory cut from 
a nation located such as ours. Sooner or later it would be retaken. 
When nations find that nothing can be gained by war with such 
a country the idea of conquest vanishes even if they covet our 
possessions. We should not exchange concentration for dif- 
fusion. 

We have heard much in this debate of England's greatness. 
England is great, but not to be compared to the United States. 
On account of her small home territory, England could not have 
a large population without colonial possessions, but we have a ter- 
ritory so large in area that it can easily accommodate ten times 
its present inhabitants without overcrowding. But even British 



11 

statesmen have doubted the wisdom of that country having colo- 
nial possessions. Mr. Gladstone once said: 

The United States have a national base for the greatest continuous empire 
ever established by man. * * * The distinction between a continuous em- 
pire and one severed and dispersed over the seas is vital. 

Even India has been a source of depleting the British treasury, 
and it is said in England that, more than any other part of the 
British Empire, India gives their statesmen sleepless nights. Be- 
sides, England is continually at war with her provinces in sup- 
pressing uprisings and revolts, at the expense of her treasury. 

The United States need have no fear of the outcome of a con- 
test with any foreign power. Great Britain is the only dangerous 
power, and her outlying dominions make her so vulnerable that 
she dare not attack us. Even if her navy is larger than ours, she 
realizes that the minute war is declared the armies of the United 
States would cross the Canadian borders and wrest from her grasp 
the gem of her colonial possessions. Canada is our hostage and 
is a sure preventive of war. 

When the Hawai'an Islands are annexed, the point of attack by 
any foreign power will be there, because it is so far from our 
strength and power. There they can meet us on equal terms, and 
it will make our wars of the future contests upon the high seas 
instead of upon the land, where our great natural strength lies. 

Why should we throw away our natural strength — land power — 
in order to grasp that which is expensive and not necessary to 
us — sea power? 

The Hawaiian Islands have a coast line of over S00 miles— as large 
as that of New England. If we annex them, they must be forti- 
fied and defended. It puts the outposts of our defense 2,100 miles 
into the Pacific. As we know it will be the point of attack in case 
of war with foreign powers, it must be fortified more strongly 
than the other portions of our country. It means, therefore, the 
expenditure of millions in fortifications and an unnecessarily large 
navy. 

"WOULD THE POSSESSION OV HAWAII BY ANY OTHER NATION LE 
DANGEROUS TO US? 

But gentlemen say it is no longer a question as to whether we 
shall own the islands, but whether we can permit any other nation 
to own them, and that if we do not take them some other nation 
will. 

Mr. Speaker, I have no apprehension that any other nation will 
ever own them or that even if they should they could be a menace 
to us. 

Some gentlemen talk as if it would mean annihilation to the 
United States if a foreign power should get possession of the 
islands. So greatly have they magnified this feature of the de- 



12 

bate that one might imagine that the very existence of our nation 
was threatened if some other nation should have a coaling station 
there. 

Why, Mr. Speaker, the greatest naval power on earth to-day 
has a naval and coaling station within 100 miles of the two leading 
cities of Seattle and Tacoma. On Vancouver Island Great Brit- 
ain has not only a coaling station, but a great naval establish- 
ment. Our naval and military men have not spent any sleepless 
nights in anticipation of total annihilation from such a source. 
Great Britain has a number of coaling stations on islands in the 
Atlantic close to our shore, and yet we do not have any night- 
mares over that fact. 

Do you suppose that Great Britain, even if she owned the Sand- 
wich Islands, would go out into the middle of the Pacific Ocean 
and from there attempt to send her battle ships against our shore? 
She, like all other nations, would find that the Hawaiian Islands 
are too far from our shore to act as a base of supplies or naval 
establishment for repairs. Very little more coal can be stored in 
a battle ship than that which is necessary to carry it to our shores. 
By the time a hostile battle ship reached our shores from Honolulu 
she would be almost out of coal, and hence not in condition to enter 
an engagement. If there were delay, her ships would be as help- 
less as sail vessels to resist or escape from our armament. 

HAWAII NOT A NATURAL, COALTNG STATION. 

Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about Hawaii being a 
coaling station. It is not naturally a coaling station, because no 
coal is found on the island. For through commerce it is not a 
coaling station. I was told by Senator Pettigrew, who came 
back from China by that route, that merchant ships do not coal 
at Honolulu, He said that at the ports of China you can buy 
coal for $7 a ton, but when you reach Honolulu it costs $14 per 
ton. Consequently it pays to take a sufficient quantity of coal to 
last to San Francisco, so as not to coal at Honolulu. The very 
statement of the reason must cany conviction. There may be 
some coaling at Honolulu, but it must be very small. 

Why should we desire even a coaling station at Hawaii when 
it is 800 miles out of the way in going from San Francisco to 
Yokohama, or the Chinese ports? In measuring distance on the 
globe it must be remembered that the earth rounds to the north. 

We already own the Aleutian Islands, which are within 75 
miles of the direct line of travel to Japan and China. Those 
islands contain coal and hence are natural coaling stations. The 
island of Kiska, in that group, contains a magnificent harbor and 
in my judgment has a far greater strategic position than any har- 
bor in Hawaii. We are apt to think of our Aleutian Islands as 



13 

being frigid and unfit for harbor purposes, but when we are 
assured that the thermometer never gets below 7° above zero, and 
also realize that Kiska is situated south of the latitude of the 
greatest port in the world, Liverpool, we can realize that there is 
no danger of ice obstructing navigation for a single day in the 
year. 

The route from San Francisco to Yokohama is three days shorter 
by our own islands than by Honolulu, and from the ports of Se- 
attle and Tacoma the time is still shorter. I am informed that 
ships do not go by Honolulu, unless they have sufficient local 
business at that port to justify the loss of three days in the voyage. 

Why should we be grasping for that which is out of the way 
when we should be developing the islands and shore line we 
already possess? 

Mr. SULZER. Will the gentleman allow me a question? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SULZER. You are opposed to the annexation of the 
Hawaiian Islands? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SULZER. But you have not said what you would do with 
those islands. 

Mr. SHAFROTH. I will state in response to the gentleman 
what I think is the best thing to do with the Hawaiian Islands. 
I believe that a policy recognizing their independence is all that 
is necessary; they will not attempt to annex their country to any 
other, and no other government will ever seek to acquire those 
islands. Now, let me go into detail a little on the subject. 

Mr. SULZER. Then you are in favor of this Government pur- 
suing with regard to the Hawaiian Islands a ' ' dog-in-the-manger ; ' 
policy, saying, " We do not want them, and we will not let any- 
body else have them." 

Mr. SHAFROTH. They do not want to go to any other country. 

Mr. SULZER. How do you know that? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Every test shows that it is true. Senator 
Pettigrew was at a meeting in the Hawaiian Islands, and un- 
dertook to find out whether those who attended that meeting had 
signed a remonstrance against annexation even to this'country; 
and every man rose and said he was opposed to annexation. 

Mr. SULZER. Suppose those islands should desire to maintain 
their independence, but at some future time should be seized by 
Great Britain or France, as they have been in the past, what 
would this country do? 

HAWAIIAN* INDEPENDENCE GUARANTEED. 

Mr. SHAFROTH. I will attempt to answer that. There was 
a treaty made between England and France at the instance of 
Daniel Webster, when he was Secretary of State, which pro- 

3o36 



14 

vides that they shall never acquire an inch of territory of the 
Hawaiian Islands. That treaty stands in the way. There has 
been no effort on the part of either of them to acquire these islands, 
and with that treaty standing there it seems to me that there is 
no possibility that the islands will ever be acquired by either of" 
those nations. 

Mr. SULZER. Right there. In case of war do treaties stand? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, that when there 
is an interest of the United States that backs up the provisions of 
a treaty, there is no country on the face of the globe that will dis- 
regard it. No, Mr. Speaker, there is no danger of these islands 
going to any other nation. 

I hold in my hand a copy of the treaty referred to, which I ask 
to incorporate as a part of my remarks: 

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and His 
Majesty the King of the French, taking into consideration the existence in 
the Sandwich Islands of a Government capable of providing for the regularity 
of its relations with foreign nations, have thought it right to engage recip- 
rocally to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent State and never 
taken possession, either directly or under the title of a protectorate, or under 
any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed. 

The undersigned, her Britannic Majesty's principal secretary of state for 
foreign affairs, and the ambassador extraordinary of His Majesty the King 
of the French at the court of London, being furnished with the necessary 
power, hereby declare in consecpience that their said majesties take recipro- 
cally that engagement. 

In witness whereof the undersigned have signed the present declaration 
and have affixed thereto the seals of their arms. 

Done in duplicate at London the 23th day of November, in the year of our 
Lord 1843. 

ABERDEEN. [l. s.] 
ST. AULAIRE. [l. s.J 

Why, Mr. Speaker, European nations are continually asserting 
that independence shall be accorded to such and such a republic. 
You remember the little Republic of San Marino, in the Pyrenees, 
between France and Spain, which has a standing army of, I think, 
eleven men . It has been protected for hundreds of years by treaty 
provisions of the European powers. It is sanctioned by the doc- 
trine of the balance of power, concerning which every European 
nation has a right to make treaty stipulations, and that is the 
reason they have recognized in our Government the right to dic- 
tate as to territorial possessions in the Western Hemisphere. 

Mr. BRUCKER. Your judgment is that the Hawaiian Gov- 
ernment gets the best end of things under the present reciprocity 
treaty with Hawaii? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Decidedly. 

Mr. BRUCKER. Is it your judgment that that treaty should 
continue? 
3536 



15 

Mr. SHAFROTH. That is a question which depends entirely 
upon how much importance we attach to the military station. 

Mr. BRUCKER. Pearl Harbor? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. Pearl Harbor. I do not believe as a matter 
of fact that the right to Pearl Harbor depends upon this treaty. 
It may be wise to continue it or it may not. Reciprocity was a 
policy of this Government for awhile and seemed to go to the ex- 
tent of taking this in. I doubt very much 

Mr. BRUCKER. Supposing our right to use Pearl Harbor to 
depend upon reciprocity, would you still be in favor of the repeal 
of the treaty? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. That would depend entirely upon whether 
or not complications were likely to arise as to annexation to any 
other country. I do not regard that naval station there as of the 
importance that some gentlemen here do. 

Mr. LOVE. Do you regard it as of absolute importance as a 
coaling station? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. I do not regard it as a necessity to this Gov- 
ernment. I believe that those who think that ships are going to 
come from the Hawaiian Islands, a distance of 2,100 miles, to at- 
tack our shores are mistaken in the mode of warfare of modern 
times. 

Mr. Speaker, they would never have a strpply of coal that far 
off. They would get it somewhere else. They would go to Mex- 
ico and buy a coaling station on the peninsula of Lower Califor- 
nia, if they could not get it in any other way. If they could not 
buy, they would seize it as a military necessity; at least, they 
would never resort to the Hawaiian Islands, because, when they 
coaled there, they would not have more than enough coal to last 
them until they got to our western coast; and when they met our 
ships, if they were engaged in battle for any considerable length 
of time, they would be out of coal, perfectly helpless, and at the 
mercy of our fleet. 

Mr. FLEMING. Is it not also true that the possession of the 
Hawaiian Islands by the United States would really be a point of 
military weakness to our Government until we had spent money 
enough on them to fortify them and make them impregnable 
against outside attack? 

Mr. SHAFROTH. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that they would 
be nothing but a source of weakness to us, unless we are willing 
to undertake the policy of building a navy twice or three times as 
large as that which we naturally should have. 

OUR TITLE TO PEARL HARBOR. 

Buteven if Hawaii possessed all the strategical advantage claimed, 
there would be no reason for annexation. We already own the 
only easily defended harbor to be found on those islands. Pearl 
3536 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

019 961 076 4 



1G 

Harbor is ours by grant, and no nation can take it from us. The 
wording of the treaty is so plain that it seems to me no one can 
doubt our title. It reads as follows: 

His Majesty, the King of the Hawaiian Islands, grants to the Government 
of the United States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River in 
the Island of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and repair 
station for the use of vessels of the United States; and to that end the United 
States may improve the entrance to said hai'bor and do all other things need- 
ful to the purpose aforesaid. 

Senator Sherman has contended that the grant was drawn by 
Senator Edmunds and that its author had stated over and over 
again that it was as absolute a conveyance as any language could 
make it. Inasmuch as Senator Edmunds is one of the most dis- 
tinguished lawyers in this country., his word ought to be given 
great consideration in the construction of this contract. 

Is it possible that for remittance of duties on sugar to the 
amount of $65,000,000 we have obtained nothing? 

Would any sane man agree to establish a coaling station and 
repair establishment, with the permanent improvements and build- 
ings necessary and with all the durable fortifications essential to 
maintain the same, and be subject to notice to quit? Would we 
agree to improve the entrance to Pearl Harbor, which would take 
thousands and thousands of dollars, for the purpose of surren- 
dering it on one year's notice? The word grant is used, and there 
is no provision limiting the time of the same. 

Pearl Harbor is ours, and hence we have all the strategical ad- 
vantage it affords. That is the only easily defended harbor in 
those islands. With that harbor in our possession, what induce- 
ment would there be for any foreign nation to annex those islands? 
None whatever. 

I therefore contend that there is no strategical advantage to 
this country in the Hawaiian Islands: but even if there were, we 
already own the only strategical point of the islands. 

Mr. Speaker, there are few questions that so vitally affect the 
welfare and happiness of the American people as that of reversing 
the policy under which our nation has prospered to a degree 
hitherto unknown in the history of the world and adopting one 
of colonial acquisitions, withits attendantimperial policy. Impar- 
tial history records the downfall of every nation that ever under- 
took to realize the dream of universal empire. Let us profit by 
the example. 

O 



VUttp 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 961 076 4 9 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



